Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Law Law Schoolcase digest
Citation preview
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 1/10
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-36409 October 26, 197
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee,
!s"
LORETA GOZO, deendant-appellant "
Oce o the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Jaime M. Lantin and Solicitor or!erto ". #d$ardo or
plaintif-appellee.
Jose %. er& or deendant-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
F#'A(O, J.)
Appellant see#s to set asi$e a %u$&'ent of the Court of (irst
)nstance of *a'bales, con!ictin& her of a !iolation of an or$inance
of Olon&apo, *a'bales, re+uirin& a per'it fro' the 'unicipal
'aor for the construction or erection of a buil$in&, as -ell as an
'o$i.cation, alteration, repair or $e'olition thereof" /he +uestions
its !ali$it, or at the !er least, its applicabilit to her, b in!o#in&
$ue process, 1 a contention she -oul$ pre'ise on -hat for her is
the teachin& of "eople *. Fa+ardo" 2 )f such a &roun$ -ere far fro'
bein& i'presse$ -ith soli$it, she stan$s on +uic#san$ -hen she
-oul$ $en the applicabilit of the or$inance to her, on the prete0t
that her house -as constructe$ -ithin the na!al base lease$ to the
A'erican ar'e$ forces" hile iel$in& to the -ellsettle$ $octrine
that it $oes not thereb cease to be Philippine territor, she -oul$,
in e3ect, see# to e'asculate our so!erei&n ri&hts b the assertion
that -e cannot e0ercise therein a$'inistrati!e %uris$iction" 4o state
the proposition is to 'a#e patent ho- 'uch it is tin&e$ -ith
unortho$o0" Clearl then, the lo-er court $ecision 'ust bea5r'e$ -ith the sole 'o$i.cation that she is &i!en thirt $as
fro' the .nalit of a %u$&'ent to obtain a per'it, failin& -hich, she
is re+uire$ to $e'olish the sa'e"
4he facts are un$ispute$" As set forth in the $ecision of the lo-er
court 4he accuse$ bou&ht a house an$ lot locate$ insi$e the
8nite$ /tates Na!al Reser!ation -ithin the territorial %uris$iction of
Olon&apo Cit" /he $e'olishe$ the house an$ built another one in
its place, -ithout a buil$in& per'it fro' the Cit Maor of Olon&apo
Cit, because she -as tol$ b one Ernesto E!alle, an assistant in
the Cit Maors o5ce, as -ell as b her nei&hbors in the area, that
such buil$in& per'it -as not necessar for the construction of the
house" On :ece'ber 29, 1966, ;uan Malones, a buil$in& an$ lot
inspector of the Cit En&ineers O5ce, Olon&apo Cit, toðer -ith
Patrol'an Ra'on Macahilas of the Olon&apo Cit police force
apprehen$e$ four carpenters -or#in& on the house of the accuse$
an$ the brou&ht the carpenters to the Olon&apo Cit police
hea$+uarters for interro&ation" < After $ue in!esti&ation, =oreta
>o?o -as char&e$ -ith !iolation of Municipal Or$inance No" 1@, /"
of 196@ -ith the Cit (iscals O5ce" 3 4he Cit Court of Olon&apo
Cit foun$ her &uilt of !iolatin& Municipal Or$inance No" 1@, /eriesof 196@ an$ sentence$ her to an i'prison'ent of one 'onth as
-ell as to pa the costs" 4he Court of )nstance of *a'bales, on
appeal, foun$ her &uilt on the abo!e facts of !iolatin& such
'unicipal or$inance but -oul$ sentence her 'erel to pa a .ne of
P2" an$ to $e'olish the house thus erecte$" /he ele!ate$ the
case to the Court of Appeals but in her brief, she -oul$ put in issue
the !ali$it of such an or$inance on constitutional &roun$ or at the
!er least its applicabilit to her in !ie- of the location of her
$-ellin& -ithin the na!al base" Accor$in&l, the Court of Appeals, in
a resolution of ;anuar 29, 197, notin& the constitutional +uestion
raise$, certi.e$ the case to this Court"
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 2/10
4here is, as 'entione$ in the openin& para&raph of this petition, no
support in la- for the stan$ ta#en b appellant"
1" )t -oul$ be fruitless for her to assert that local &o!ern'ent units
are $e!oi$ of authorit to re+uire buil$in& per'its" 4his Court,
fro' Siter *. M$nicipalit& o e!$, 4 $eci$e$ in 1911, has
sanctione$ the !ali$it of such 'easures" )t is 'uch too late in the
$a to conten$ that such a re+uire'ent cannot be !ali$l i'pose$"E!en appellant, %usti.abl concerne$ about the unfa!orable
i'pression that coul$ be create$ if she -ere to $en that such
co'petence is !este$ in 'unicipal corporations an$ chartere$
cities, ha$ to conce$e in her brief )f, at all the +uestione$
or$inance 'a be pre$icate$ un$er the &eneral -elfare clause
< " 5 )ts scope is -i$e, -ellni&h all e'bracin&, co!erin& e!er
aspect of public health, public 'orals, public safet, an$ the -ell
bein& an$ &oo$ or$er of the co''unit" 6
)t &oes -ithout sain& that such a po-er is sub%ect to li'itations"
Certainl, if its e0ercise is !iolati!e of an constitutional ri&ht, then
its !ali$it coul$ be i'pu&ne$, or at the !er least, its applicabilit
to the person a$!ersel a3ecte$ coul$ be +uestione$" /o 'uch is
settle$ la-" Apparentl, appellant has a$opte$ the !ie- that a $ue
process +uestion 'a in$ee$ be raise$ in !ie- of -hat for her is its
oppressi!e character" /he is le$ to such a conclusion, relin&
on "eople *. Fa+ardo" A 'ore careful scrutin of such a $ecision
-oul$ not ha!e le$ her astra, for that case is easil
$istin&uishable" 4he facts as set forth in the opinion follo- )t
appears that on Au&ust 1D, 19D, $urin& the incu'benc of
$efen$antappellant ;uan (" (a%ar$o as 'aor of the 'unicipalit of Baao, Ca'arines /ur, the 'unicipal council passe$ the or$inance in
+uestion pro!i$in& as follo-s < 1" An person or persons -ho -ill
construct or repair a buil$in& shoul$, before constructin& or
repairin&, obtain a -ritten per'it fro' the Municipal Maor" < 2" A
fee of not less than P2" shoul$ be char&e$ for each buil$in&
per'it an$ P1" for each repair per'it issue$" < " PenaltFAn
!iolation of the pro!isions of the abo!e, this or$inance, shall 'a#e
the !iolator liable to pa a .ne of not less than P2D nor 'ore than
PD or i'prison'ent of not less than 12 $as nor 'ore than 2@
$as or both, at the $iscretion of the court" )f sai$ buil$in& $estros
the !ie- of the Public Pla?a or occupies an public propert, it shall
be re'o!e$ at the e0pense of the o-ner of the buil$in& or house"
< " (our ears later, after the ter' of appellant (a%ar$o as 'aor
ha$ e0pire$, he an$ his soninla-, appellant Babilonia, .le$ a
-ritten re+uest -ith the incu'bent 'unicipal 'aor for a per'it to
construct a buil$in& a$%acent to their &asoline station on a parcel of
lan$ re&istere$ in (a%ar$os na'e, locate$ alon& the national
hi&h-a an$ separate$ fro' the public pla?a b a cree# < " On
;anuar 16, 19D@, the re+uest -as $enie$, for the reason a'on&others that the propose$ buil$in& -oul$ $estro the !ie- or beaut
of the public pla?a < " On ;anuar 1G, 19D@, $efen$ants reiterate$
their re+uest for a buil$in& per'it <, but a&ain the re+uest -as
turne$ $o-n b the 'aor" hereupon, appellants procee$e$ -ith
the construction of the buil$in& -ithout a per'it, because the
nee$e$ a place of resi$ence !er ba$l, their for'er house ha!in&
been $estroe$ b a tphoon an$ hitherto the ha$ been li!in& on
lease$ propert" !
Clearl then, the application of such an or$inance to (a%ar$o -as
oppressi!e" A con!iction therefore for a !iolation thereof both in the
%ustice of the peace court of Baao, Ca'arines /ur as -ell as in the
Court of (irst )nstance coul$ not be sustaine$" )n this case, on the
contrar, appellant ne!er bothere$ to co'pl -ith the or$inance"
Perhaps a-are of such a crucial $istinction, she -oul$ assert in her
brief 4he e!i$ence sho-e$ that e!en if the accuse$ -ere to
secure a per'it fro' the Maor, the sa'e -oul$ not ha!e been
&rante$" 4o re+uire the accuse$ to obtain a per'it before
constructin& her house -oul$ be an e0ercise in futilit" 4he la- -ill
not re+uire anone to perfor' an i'possibilit, neither in la- or in
fact < " 9 )t -oul$ be fro' her o-n !ersion, at the !er least then,pre'ature to anticipate such an a$!erse result, an$ thus to
con$e'n an or$inance -hich certainl len$s itself to an
interpretation that is neither oppressi!e, unfair, or unreasonable"
4hat #in$ of interpretation su5ces to re'o!e an possible +uestion
of its !ali$it, as -as e0pressl announce$ in "rimicias *.
F$/oso" 10 /o it appears fro' this portion of the opinion of ;ustice
(eria, spea#in& for the Court /ai$ pro!ision is susceptible of t-o
constructions one is that the Maor of the Cit of Manila is !este$
-ith unre&ulate$ $iscretion to &rant or refuse to &rant per'it for
the hol$in& of a la-ful asse'bl or 'eetin&, para$e, or procession
in the streets an$ other public places of the Cit of Manila an$ the
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 3/10
other is that the applicant has the ri&ht to a per'it -hich shall be
&rante$ b the Maor, sub%ect onl to the latters reasonable
$iscretion to $eter'ine or specif the streets or public places to be
use$ for the purpose, -ith a !ie- to pre!ent confusion b
o!erlappin&, to secure con!enient use of the streets an$ public
places b others, an$ to pro!i$e a$e+uate an$ proper policin& to
'ini'i?e the ris# of $isor$er" After a 'ature $eliberation, -e ha!e
arri!e$ at the conclusion that -e 'ust a$opt the secon$construction, that is, construe the pro!isions of the sai$ or$inance
to 'ean that it $oes not confer upon the Maor the po-er to refuse
to &rant the per'it, but onl the $iscretion, in issuin& the per'it, to
$eter'ine or specif the streets or public places -here the para$e
or procession 'a pass or the 'eetin& 'a be hel$" 11 )f, in a case
a3ectin& such a preferre$ free$o' as the ri&ht to asse'bl, this
Court coul$ construe an or$inance of the Cit of Manila so as to
a!oi$ o3en$in& a&ainst a constitutional pro!ision, there is nothin&
to preclu$e it fro' a si'ilar 'o$e of approach in or$er to sho- the
lac# of 'erit of an attac# a&ainst an or$inance re+uirin& a per'it"
Appellant cannot therefore ta#e co'fort fro' an broa$ state'ent
in the (a%ar$o opinion, -hich inci$entall is ta#en out of conte0t,
consi$erin& the a$'itte$ oppressi!e application of the challen&e$
'easure in that liti&ation" /o 'uch then for the contention that she
coul$ not ha!e been !ali$l con!icte$ for a !iolation of such
or$inance" Nor shoul$ it be for&otten that she $i$ su3er the sa'e
fate t-ice, once fro' the Cit Court an$ thereafter fro' the Court
of (irst )nstance" 4he reason is ob!ious" /uch or$inance applies to
her"
2" Much less is a re!ersal in$icate$ because of the alle&e$ absenceof the rather no!el concept of a$'inistrati!e %uris$iction on the part
of Olon&apo Cit" Nor is no!elt the onl thin& that 'a be sai$
a&ainst it" (ar -orse is the assu'ption at -ar -ith controllin& an$
authoritati!e $octrines that the 'ere e0istence of 'ilitar or na!al
bases of a forei&n countr cuts $eepl into the po-er to &o!ern"
4-o lea$in& cases 'a be cite$ to sho- ho- o3ensi!e is such
thin#in& to the %uristic concept of so!erei&nt, "eople *.
Acierto, 12 an$ 'ea/an *. ommissioner o 0nternal 'e*en$e" 13 As
-as so e'phaticall set forth b ;ustice 4uason in Acierto B the
A&ree'ent, it shoul$ be note$, the Philippine >o!ern'ent 'erel
consents that the 8nite$ /tates e0ercise %uris$iction in certain
cases" 4he consent -as &i!en purel as a 'atter of co'it,
courtes, or e0pe$ienc" 4he Philippine >o!ern'ent has not
ab$icate$ its so!erei&nt o!er the bases as part of the Philippine
territor or $i!este$ itself co'pletel of %uris$iction o!er o3enses
co''itte$ therein" 8n$er the ter's of the treat, the 8nite$ /tates
>o!ern'ent has prior or preferential but not e0clusi!e %uris$iction
of such o3enses" 4he Philippine >o!ern'ent retains not onl
%uris$ictional ri&hts not &rante$, but also all such ce$e$ ri&hts asthe 8nite$ /tates Militar authorities for reasons of their o-n
$ecline to 'a#e use of" 4he .rst proposition is i'plie$ fro' the fact
of Philippine so!erei&nt o!er the bases the secon$ fro' the
e0press pro!isions of the treat" 14 4here -as a reiteration of such
a !ie- in Rea&an" 4hus Nothin& is better settle$ than that the
Philippines bein& in$epen$ent an$ so!erei&n, its authorit 'a be
e0ercise$ o!er its entire $o'ain" 4here is no portion thereof that is
beon$ its po-er" ithin its li'its, its $ecrees are supre'e, its
co''an$s para'ount" )ts la-s &o!ern therein, an$ e!erone to
-ho' it applies 'ust sub'it to its ter's" 4hat is the e0tent of its
%uris$iction, both territorial an$ personal" Necessaril, li#e-ise, it
has to be e0clusi!e" )f it -ere not thus, there is a $i'inution of
so!erei&nt" 15 4hen ca'e this para&raph $ealin& -ith the
principle of autoli'itation )t is to be a$'itte$ an state 'a, b
its consent, e0press or i'plie$, sub'it to a restriction of its
so!erei&n ri&hts" 4here 'a thus be a curtail'ent of -hat
other-ise is a po-er plenar in character" 4hat is the concept of
so!erei&nt as autoli'itation, -hich, in the succinct lan&ua&e of
;elline#, is the propert of a stateforce $ue to -hich it has the
e0clusi!e capacit of le&al self$eter'ination an$ selfrestriction" A
state then, if it chooses to, 'a refrain fro' the e0ercise of -hatother-ise is illi'itable co'petence" 16 4he opinion -as at pains to
point out thou&h that e!en then, there is at the 'ost $i'inution of
%uris$ictional ri&hts, not its $isappearance" 4he -or$s e'ploe$
follo- )ts la-s 'a as to so'e persons foun$ -ithin its territor
no lon&er control" Nor $oes the 'atter en$ there" )t is not preclu$e$
fro' allo-in& another po-er to participate in the e0ercise of
%uris$ictional ri&ht o!er certain portions of its territor" )f it $oes so,
it b no 'eans follo-s that such areas beco'e i'presse$ -ith an
alien character" 4he retain their status as nati!e soil" 4he are still
sub%ect to its authorit" )ts %uris$iction 'a be $i'inishe$, but it
$oes not $isappear" /o it is -ith the bases un$er lease to the
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 4/10
A'erican ar'e$ forces b !irtue of the 'ilitar bases a&ree'ent of
19@7" 4he are not an$ cannot be forei&n territor" 1
Can there be anthin& clearer, therefore, than that onl a
turnabout, un-arrante$ an$ un%usti.e$, fro' -hat is settle$ an$
ortho$o0 la- can len$ the sli&htest $e&ree of plausibilit to the
contention of absence of a$'inistrati!e %uris$iction" )f it -ere
other-ise, -hat -as aptl referre$ to b ;ustice 4uason as a'atter of co'it, courtes, or e0pe$ienc beco'es one of
obeisance an$ sub'ission" )f on a concern purel $o'estic in its
i'plications, $e!oi$ of an connection -ith national securit, the
MilitarBases A&ree'ent coul$ be thus interprete$, then
so!erei&nt in$ee$ beco'es a 'oc#er an$ an illusion" Nor $oes
appellants thesis rest on less sha# foun$ation b the 'ere fact
that Acierto an$ Rea&an $ealt -ith the co'petence of the national
&o!ern'ent, -hile -hat is sou&ht to be e'asculate$ in this case is
the socalle$ a$'inistrati!e %uris$iction of a 'unicipal corporation"
ithin the li'its of its territor, -hate!er statutor po-ers are
!este$ upon it 'a be !ali$l e0ercise$" An resi$ual authorit an$
therein conferre$, -hether e0pressl or i'plie$l, belon&s to the
national &o!ern'ent, not to an alien countr" hat is e!en 'ore to
be $eplore$ in this stan$ of appellant is that no such clai' is 'a$e
b the A'erican na!al authorities, not that it -oul$ $o the' an
&oo$ if it -ere so asserte$" 4o +uote fro' Acierto ane- 4he
carrin& out of the pro!isions of the Bases A&ree'ent is the
concern of the contractin& parties alone" hether, therefore, a
&i!en case -hich b the treat co'es -ithin the 8nite$ /tates
%uris$iction shoul$ be transferre$ to the Philippine authorities is a
'atter about -hich the accuse$ has nothin& to $o or sa" )n other-or$s, the ri&hts &rante$ to the 8nite$ /tates b the treat insure
solel to that countr an$ cannot be raise$ b the o3en$er" 1! )f an
accuse$ -oul$ su3er fro' such $isabilit, e!en if the A'erican
ar'e$ forces -ere the bene.ciar of a treat pri!ile&e, -hat is
there for appellant to ta#e hol$ of -hen there is absolutel no
sho-in& of an alle&e$ &rant of -hat is +uaintl referre$ to as
a$'inistrati!e %uris$ictionH 4hat is all, an$ it is 'ore than enou&h,
to 'a#e 'anifest the futilit of see#in& a re!ersal"
"HEREFORE, the appeale$ $ecision of No!e'ber 11, 1969
is AFFIRMED insofar as it foun$ the accuse$, =oreta >o?o, &uilt
beon$ reasonable $oubt of a !iolation of Municipal Or$inance No"
1@, series of 196@ an$ sentencin& her to pa a .ne of P2" -ith
subsi$iar i'prison'ent in case of insol!enc, an$ 'o$i.e$ insofar
as she is re+uire$ to $e'olish the house that is the sub%ect 'atter
of the case, she bein& &i!en a perio$ of thirt $as fro' the .nalit
of this $ecision -ithin -hich to obtain the re+uire$ per'it" Onl
upon her failure to $o so -ill that portion of the appeale$ $ecision
re+uirin& $e'olition be enforce$" Costs a&ainst the accuse$"
Ma1alintal, .J., 2aldi*ar, astro, %eehan1ee, Ma1asiar, Antonio and
#s/$erra, JJ., conc$r.
3arredo, J., too1 no part.
DIGEST
F#$%&' =oreta >o?o bou&ht a house an$ lot -hich -as locate$
insi$e the 8/ Na!alReser!ation -hich is -ithin the territorial
%uris$iction of Olon&apo Cit" 8pon the a$!ice of an assistant in the
Maors O5ce an$ so'e nei&hbors, she $e'olishe$ the house
stan$in& thereon -ithout ac+uirin& the necessar per'its an$ then
later on erecte$ another house" /he -as then char&e$ b the Cit
En&ineers O5ce for !iolatin& a 'unicipal or$er -hich re+uires her
to secure per'its for an $e'olition an$Ior construction -ithin the
Cit" /he -as con!icte$ in !iolation thereof b the lo-er court" /heappeale$ an$ countere$ that the Cit of Olon&apo has no
a$'inistrati!e %uris$iction o!er the sai$ lot because it is -ithin a
Na!al Base of a forei&n countr"
ISSUE' )s the Municipal Or$inance enforceable -ithin the 8/ Na!al
BaseH
HELD' Jes" 4he Philippine >o!ern'ent has not ab$icate$ its
so!erei&nt o!er the bases as part of the Philippine territor or
$i!este$ itself co'pletel of %uris$iction o!er o3enses co''itte$therein" 8n$er the ter's of the treat, the 8nite$ /tates
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 5/10
>o!ern'ent has prior or preferential but not e0clusi!e %uris$iction
of such o3enses" 4he Philippine >o!ern'ent retains not onl
%uris$ictional ri&hts not &rante$, but also all such ce$e$ ri&hts as
the 8nite$ /tates Militar authorities for reasons of their o-n
$ecline to 'a#e use of KMilitar Bases A&ree'entL" ence, in the
e0ercise of its so!erei&nt, the /tate throu&h the Cit of Olon&apo
$oes ha!e a$'inistrati!e %uris$iction o!er the lot locate$ -ithin the
8/ Na!al Base"
R()* +. Co+(%
Po&%(* o S(%(/( 16, 2014 Co&%)%%)o# L#
T#&' Co&%)%%)o# L# C#&( )(7&
D@ 8"/" 1 K19D7L
F#$%&' Mrs" Co!ert #ille$ her husban$ on an airbase in En&lan$"
Pursuant to a statusofforces e0ecuti!e a&ree'ent -ith En&lan$,she -as trie$ an$ con!icte$ b 8/ court'artial -ithout a %ur trial
un$er the 8CM;" /he petitione$ a -rit of habeus corpus on the
&roun$s that the con!iction !iolate$ her Dth 6th A'en$'ent ri&hts
to be trie$ b a %ur after in$ict'ent b a &ran$ %ur"
I&&(' hether the e0ecuti!e a&ree'ent is restraine$ b
constitutional li'itations"
Ho*)' Jes" 4he Constitution in its entiret applies to the trials"
/ince their court'artial $i$ not 'eet the re+uire'ents of Art" ))) 2
or the Dth an$ 6th A'en$'ents the court -as co'pelle$ to
$eter'ine if there is anthin& -ithin the Constitution -hichauthori?es the 'ilitar trial of $epen$ents acco'panin& the
ar'e$ forces o!erseas" No a&ree'ent -ith a forei&n nation can
confer po-er on the Con&ress, or on an other branch of
>o!ern'ent, -hich is free fro' the restraints of the Constitution"
)n &eneral, the presi$ent cannot contract a-a in$i!i$ual
constitutional ri&hts" )t is -ithin the Presi$ents po-er to enter into
these a&ree'ents, ho-e!er, but the a&ree'ent cannot conict
-ith enacte$ statute or the constitution"
T##*# +& A##, 22 SCRA 1!, M#8 2, 199
F#$%& ' 4his is a petition see#in& to nullif the Philippine rati.cation
of the orl$ 4ra$e Or&ani?ation K4OL A&ree'ent" Petitioners
+uestion the concurrence of herein respon$ents actin& in their
capacities as /enators !ia si&nin& the sai$ a&ree'ent"
4he 4O opens access to forei&n 'ar#ets, especiall its 'a%or
tra$in& partners, throu&h the re$uction of tari3s on its e0ports,
particularl a&ricultural an$ in$ustrial pro$ucts" 4hus, pro!i$es ne-opportunities for the ser!ice sector cost an$ uncertaint associate$
-ith e0portin& an$ 'ore in!est'ent in the countr" 4hese are the
pre$icte$ bene.ts as reecte$ in the a&ree'ent an$ as !ie-e$ b
the si&nator /enators, a free 'ar#et espouse$ b 4O"
Petitioners on the other han$ !ie-e$ the 4O a&ree'ent as one
that li'its, restricts an$ i'pair Philippine econo'ic so!erei&nt an$
le&islati!e po-er" 4hat the (ilipino (irst polic of the Constitution
-as ta#en for &rante$ as it &i!es forei&n tra$in& inter!ention"
I&&( ' hether or not there has been a &ra!e abuse of $iscretion
a'ountin& to lac# or e0cess of %uris$iction on the part of the /enate
in &i!in& its concurrence of the sai$ 4O a&ree'ent"
H(*' )n its :eclaration of Principles an$ state policies, the
Constitution a$opts the &enerall accepte$ principles of
international la- as part of the la- of the lan$, an$ a$heres to the
polic of peace, e+ualit, %ustice, free$o', cooperation an$ a'it ,
-ith all nations" B the $octrine of incorporation, the countr is
boun$ b &enerall accepte$ principles of international la-, -hich
are consi$ere$ auto'aticall part of our o-n la-s" Pacta suntser!an$a Q international a&ree'ents 'ust be perfor'e$ in &oo$
faith" A treat is not a 'ere 'oral obli&ation but creates a le&all
bin$in& obli&ation on the parties"
4hrou&h 4O the so!erei&nt of the state cannot in fact an$ realit
be consi$ere$ as absolute because it is a re&ulation of co''ercial
relations a'on& nations" /uch as -hen Philippines %oine$ the
8nite$ Nations K8NL it consente$ to restrict its so!erei&nt ri&ht
un$er the concept of so!erei&nt as autoli'itation" hat /enate
$i$ -as a !ali$ e0ercise of authorit" As to $eter'ine -hether such
e0ercise is -ise, bene.cial or !iable is outsi$e the real' of %u$icial
in+uir an$ re!ie-" 4he act of si&nin& the sai$ a&ree'ent is not a
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 6/10
le&islati!e restriction as 4O allo-s -ith$ra-al of 'e'bership
shoul$ this be the political $esire of a 'e'ber" Also, it shoul$ not
be !ie-e$ as a li'itation of econo'ic so!erei&nt" 4O re'ains as
the onl !iable structure for 'ultilateral tra$in& an$ the !eritable
foru' for the $e!elop'ent of international tra$e la-" )ts alternati!e
is isolation, sta&nation if not econo'ic self$estruction" 4hus, the
people be allo-e$, throu&h their $ul electe$ o5cers, 'a#e their
free choice"Petition is :)/M)//E: for lac# of 'erit"
>o!ern'ent Of 4he 8/A " on" Pur&anan K22L
>o!ern'ent of the 8/A !" on" Pur&anan
>R" NO" 1@GD71 /ept" 2@ 22
PAN>AN)BAN, ;"
=essons E0tra$ition Process, Bail on E0tra$ition, Ri&ht of :ue
Process an$ (un$a'ental (airness in E0tra$ition
=a-s Bill of Ri&hts, P: 169, 8/Phil E0tra$ition 4reat
(AC4/
Petition is a se+uel to the case /ec" of ;ustice !" on" =antion"
4he /ecretar -as or$ere$ to furnish Mr" ;i'ene? copies of thee0tra$ition re+uest an$ its supportin& papers an$ to &rant the
latter a reasonableperio$ -ithin -hich to .le a co''ent an$
supportin& e!i$ence" But, on 'otion for reconsi$eration b the
/ec" of ;ustice, it re!erse$ its $ecision but hel$ that the Mr" ;i'ene?
-as bereft of the ri&ht to notice an$ hearin& $urin& the e!aluation
sta&e of the e0tra$ition process" On Ma 1G, 21,
the >o!ern'ent of the8/A, represente$ b the Philippine
:epart'ent of ;ustice, .le$ -ith the R4C, the Petition for E0tra$ition
prain& for the issuance of an or$er for his i''e$iate arrest
pursuant to /ec" 6 of P: 169 in or$er to pre!ent the i&ht of
;i'ene?" Before the R4C coul$ act on the petition, Mr" ;i'ene? .le$
before it an 8r&ent ManifestationIE0Parte Motion prain& for his
application for an arrest -arrant be set for hearin&" After the
hearin&, as re+uire$ b the court, Mr" ;i'ene? sub'itte$ his
Me'oran$u'" 4herein see#in& an alternati!e praer that in case a
-arrant shoul$ issue, he be allo-e$ to post bail in the a'ount of
P1," 4he court or$ere$ the issuance of a -arrant for
his arrest an$ .0in& bail for his te'porar libert at P1M in cash"
After he ha$ surren$ere$ his passport an$ poste$ the re+uire$ cashbon$, ;i'ene? -as &rante$ pro!isional libert"
>o!ern'ent of the 8/A .le$ a petition for Certiorari un$er Rule
6D of the Rules of Court to set asi$e the or$er for the issuance of a
-arrant for his arrest an$ .0in& bail for his te'porar libert at
P1M in cash -hich the court $ee's best to ta#e co&ni?ance as
there is still no local %urispru$ence to &ui$e lo-er court"
)//8E/
i" hether or NO4 on" Pur&anan acte$ -ithout or in e0cess of
%uris$iction or -ith &ra!e abuse of $iscretion a'ountin& to lac# ore0cess of %uris$iction in a$optin& a proce$ure of .rst hearin& a
potential e0tra$itee before issuin& an arrest -arrant un$er /ection
6 of P: No" 169
ii" hether or NO4 on" Pur&anan acte$ -ithout or in e0cess of
%uris$iction or -ith &ra!e abuse of $iscretion a'ountin& to lac# or
e0cess of %uris$iction in &rantin& the praer for bail
iii" hether or NO4 there is a !iolation of $ue process
E=: Petition is >RAN4E:" Bail bon$ poste$ is CANCE==E:"
Re&ional 4rial Court of Manila is $irecte$ to con$uct the e0tra$ition procee$in&s before
it"
i" JE/"
B usin& the phrase if it appears, the la- further con!es that
accurac is not as
i'portant as spee$ at such earl sta&e" (ro' the #no-le$&e an$
the 'aterial then a!ailable to it, the court is e0pecte$ 'erel to &et
a &oo$ .rst i'pression or a pri'a facie .n$in& su5cient to 'a#e a
spee$ initial $eter'ination as re&ar$s the arrest an$ $etention of
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 7/10
the accuse$" 4he pri'a facie e0istence of probable cause for
hearin& the petition an$, a priori, for issuin& an arrest -arrant -as
alrea$ e!i$ent fro' the Petition itself an$ its supportin&
$ocu'ents" ence, after ha!in& alrea$ $eter'ine$ therefro' that
a pri'a facie .n$in& $i$ e0ist, respon$ent %u$&e &ra!el abuse$ his
$iscretion -hen he set the 'atter for hearin& upon 'otion of
;i'ene?" 4he silence of the =a- an$ the 4reat leans to the
'ore reasonableinterpretation that there is no intention topunctuate -ith a hearin& e!er little step in the entire
procee$in&s" )t also bears e'phasi?in& at this point that
e0tra$ition procee$in&s are su''ar in nature" /en$in& to
persons sou&ht to be e0tra$ite$ a notice of the re+uest for
their arrest an$ settin& it for hearin& at so'e future $ate -oul$
&i!e the' a'ple opportunit to prepare an$ e0ecute an escape
-hich neither the 4reat nor the =a- coul$ ha!e inten$e$"
E!en /ection 2 of Article ))) of our Constitution, -hich is in!o#e$
b ;i'ene?, $oes not re+uire a notice or a hearin& before the
issuance of a -arrant of arrest" 4o $eter'ine probable cause forthe issuance ofarrest -arrants, the Constitution itself re+uires onl
the e0a'ination un$er oath or a5r'ation of co'plainants an$ the
-itnesses the 'a pro$uce"
4he Proper Proce$ure to Best /er!e 4he En$s Of ;ustice )n
E0tra$ition Cases
8pon receipt of a petition for e0tra$ition an$ its supportin&
$ocu'ents, the %u$&e 'ust stu$ the' an$ 'a#e, as soon as
possible, a pri'a facie .n$in& -hether
aL the are su5cient in for' an$ substancebL the sho- co'pliance -ith the E0tra$ition 4reat an$ =a-
cL the person sou&ht is e0tra$itable
At his $iscretion, the %u$&e 'a re+uire the sub'ission of further
$ocu'entation or 'a personall e0a'ine the a5ants an$
-itnesses of the petitioner" )f, in spite of this stu$ an$
e0a'ination, no pri'a facie .n$in& is possible, the petition 'a be
$is'isse$ at the $iscretion of the %u$&e" On the other han$, if the
presence of a pri'a facie case is $eter'ine$, then the 'a&istrate
'ust i''e$iatel issue a -arrant for the arrest of the e0tra$itee,
-ho is at the sa'e ti'e su''one$ to ans-er the petition an$ to
appear at sche$ule$ su''ar hearin&s" Prior to the issuance of
the -arrant, the %u$&e 'ust not infor' or notif the potential
e0tra$itee of the pen$enc of the petition, lest the latter be &i!en
the opportunit to escape an$ frustrate the procee$in&s"
ii" Jes"
4he constitutional pro!ision on bail on Article ))), /ection 1 of theConstitution, as -ell
as /ection @ of Rule 11@ of the Rules of Court, applies onl -hen a
person has been arreste$ an$ $etaine$ for !iolation of Philippine
cri'inal la-s" )t $oes not appl to e0tra$ition procee$in&s,
because e0tra$ition courts $o not ren$er %u$&'ents of con!iction
or ac+uittal" Moreo!er, the constitutional ri&ht to bail o-s fro'
the presu'ption of innocence in fa!or of e!er accuse$ -ho shoul$
not be sub%ecte$ to the loss of free$o' as thereafter he -oul$ be
entitle$ to ac+uittal, unless his &uilt be pro!e$
beon$ reasonable$oubt" )n e0tra$ition, the presu'ption of
innocence is not at issue" 4he pro!ision in the Constitution statin&that the ri&ht to bail shall not be i'paire$ e!en -hen the pri!ile&e
of the -rit of habeas corpus is suspen$e$ .n$s application onl
to persons %u$iciall char&e$ for rebellion or o3enses inherent in or
$irectl connecte$ -ith in!asion"
4hat the o3enses for -hich ;i'ene? is sou&ht to be e0tra$ite$
are bailable in the 8nite$ /tates is not an ar&u'ent to &rant hi'
one in the present case" E0tra$ition procee$in&s are separate an$
$istinct fro' the trial for the o3enses for -hich he is char&e$" e
shoul$ appl for bail before the courts trin& the cri'inal casesa&ainst hi', not before the e0tra$ition court"
E0ceptions to the No Bail Rule
Bail is not a 'atter of ri&ht in e0tra$ition cases" )t is sub%ect to
%u$icial $iscretion in the conte0t of the peculiar facts of each case"
Bail 'a be applie$ for an$ &rante$ as an e0ception, onl upon a
clear an$ con!incin& sho-in&
1L that, once &rante$ bail, the applicant -ill not be a i&ht ris# or
a $an&er to the co''unit an$
2L that there e0ist special, hu'anitarian an$ co'pellin&
circu'stances inclu$in&, as a 'atter of reciprocit, those cite$ b
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 8/10
the hi&hest court in the re+uestin& state -hen it &rants pro!isional
libert in e0tra$ition cases therein
/ince this e0ception has no e0press or speci.c statutor basis,
an$ since it is $eri!e$ essentiall fro' &eneral principles of %ustice
an$ fairness, the applicant bears the bur$en of pro!in& the abo!e
t-otiere$ re+uire'ent -ith clarit, precision an$ e'phatic
forcefulness"
)t 'ust be note$ that e!en before pri!ate respon$ent ran for an$
-on a con&ressional seat in Manila, it -as alrea$ of public
#no-le$&e that the 8nite$ /tates -as re+uestin& his e0tra$ition"
4herefore, his constituents -ere or shoul$ ha!e been prepare$ for
the conse+uences of the e0tra$ition case" 4hus, the court rule$
a&ainst his clai' that his election to public o5ce is b itself a
co'pellin& reason to &rant hi' bail"
>i!in& pre'iu' to $ela b consi$erin& it as a special
circu'stance for the &rant of bail -oul$ be tanta'ount to &i!in&hi' the po-er to &rant bail to hi'self" )t -oul$ also encoura&e hi'
to stretch out an$ unreasonabl $ela the e0tra$ition procee$in&s
e!en 'ore" E0tra$ition procee$in&s shoul$ be con$ucte$ -ith all
$eliberate spee$ to $eter'ine co'pliance -ith the E0tra$ition
4reat an$ =a- an$, -hile safe&uar$in& basic in$i!i$ual ri&hts, to
a!oi$ the le&alistic contortions, $elas an$ technicalities that 'a
ne&ate that purpose"
4hat he has not et e$ fro' the Philippines cannot be ta#en to
'ean that he -ill stan$ his &roun$ an$ still be -ithin reach of our&o!ern'ent if an$ -hen it 'atters that is, upon the resolution of
the Petition for E0tra$ition"
iii" NO"
Potential e0tra$itees are entitle$ to the ri&hts to $ue process an$
to fun$a'ental fairness" 4he $octrine of ri&ht to $ue process an$
fun$a'ental fairness $oes not al-as call for a prior opportunit to
be hear$" A subse+uent opportunit to be hear$ is enou&h" e
-ill be &i!en full opportunit to be hear$ subse+uentl, -hen the
e0tra$ition court hears the Petition for E0tra$ition" )n$ee$,
a!ailable $urin& the hearin&s on the petition an$ the ans-er is the
full chance to be hear$ an$ to en%o fun$a'ental fairness that is
co'patible -ith the su''ar nature of e0tra$ition"
)t is also -orth notin& that before the 8/ &o!ern'ent re+ueste$
the e0tra$ition of respon$ent, procee$in&s ha$ alrea$ been
con$ucte$ in that countr" e alrea$ ha$ that opportunit in the
re+uestin& state et, instea$ of ta#in& it, he ran a-a"
Other :octrines
(i!e Postulates of E0tra$ition
1L E0tra$ition )s a Ma%or )nstru'ent for the /uppression of Cri'e
)n this era of &lobali?ation, easier an$ faster international tra!el,
an$ an e0pan$in& rin& of
international cri'es an$ cri'inals, -e cannot a3or$ to be an
isolationist state" e nee$ to cooperate -ith other states in or$er
to i'pro!e our chances of suppressin& cri'e in our o-n countr"
2L 4he Re+uestin& /tate ill Accor$ :ue Process to the Accuse$
B enterin& into an e0tra$ition treat, the Philippines is $ee'e$ to
ha!e repose$ its trust
in the reliabilit or soun$ness of the le&al an$ %u$icial sste' of its
treat partner, as -ell as in the abilit an$ the -illin&ness of the
latter to &rant basic ri&hts to the accuse$ in the pen$in& cri'inal
case therein"
L 4he Procee$in&s Are /ui >eneris
An e0tra$ition procee$in& is sui &eneris
aL )t is not a cri'inal procee$in& -hich -ill call into operation all
the ri&hts of an accuse$ as &uarantee$ b the Bill of Ri&hts" )t $oes
not in!ol!e the $eter'ination of the &uilt or innocence of an
accuse$" is &uilt or innocence -ill be a$%u$&e$ in the court of the
state -here he -ill be e0tra$ite$"
bL An e0tra$ition procee$in& is su''ar in nature -hile cri'inal
procee$in&s in!ol!e a fullblo-n trial"
cL )n ter's of the +uantu' of e!i$ence to be satis.e$, a cri'inal
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 9/10
case re+uires proof beon$ reasonable $oubt for con!iction -hile
a fu&iti!e 'a be or$ere$ e0tra$ite$ upon sho-in& of the
e0istence of a pri'a facie case
$L 8nli#e in a cri'inal case -here %u$&'ent beco'es e0ecutor
upon bein& ren$ere$ .nal, in an e0tra$ition procee$in&, our courts
'a a$%u$&e an in$i!i$ual e0tra$itable but the Presi$ent has the
.nal $iscretion to e0tra$ite hi'"
E0tra$ition is 'erel a 'easure of international %u$icial assistance
throu&h -hich a person char&e$ -ith or con!icte$ of a cri'e is
restore$ to a %uris$iction -ith the best clai' to tr that person" 4he
ulti'ate purpose of e0tra$ition procee$in&s in court is onl to
$eter'ine -hether the e0tra$ition re+uest co'plies -ith the
E0tra$ition 4reat, an$ -hether the person sou&ht is e0tra$itable"
@L Co'pliance /hall Be in >oo$ (aith"
e are boun$ b pacta sunt ser!an$a to co'pl in &oo$ faith -ith
our obli&ationsun$er the 4reat" Accor$in&l, the Philippines 'ust be rea$ an$ in
a position to $eli!er the
accuse$, shoul$ it be foun$ proper
DL 4here )s an 8n$erlin& Ris# of (li&ht
)n$ee$, e0tra$ition hearin&s -oul$ not e!en be&in, if onl the
accuse$ -ere
-illin& to sub'it to trial in the re+uestin& countr" Prior acts of
herein respon$entaL lea!in& the re+uestin& state ri&ht before the conclusion of his
in$ict'ent procee$in&s there an$
bL re'ainin& in the re+ueste$ state $espite learnin& that the
re+uestin& state is see#in& his return an$ that the cri'es he is
char&e$ -ith are bailable
E0tra$ition is Essentiall E0ecuti!e
E0tra$ition is essentiall an e0ecuti!e, not a %u$icial, responsibilit
arisin& out of the presi$ential po-er to con$uct forei&n relations
an$ to i'ple'ent treaties" 4hus, the E0ecuti!e :epart'ent of
&o!ern'ent has broa$ $iscretion in its $ut an$ po-er of
i'ple'entation"
Go*ernment o 4on/1on/ *. Olalia, 567 S'A 89: ;6::9<
poste$ in CON=A2 cases
F#$%&
Pri!ate respon$ent MuSo? -as char&e$ before on& Ton& Court"
arrants of arrest -ere issue$ an$ b !irtue of a .nal $ecree the
!ali$it of the Or$er of Arrest -as uphel$" 4he petitioner on& Ton&
A$'inistrati!e Re&ion .le$ a petition for the e0tra$ition of the
pri!ate respon$ent" )n the sa'e case, a petition for bail -as .le$
b the pri!ate respon$ent"
4he petition for bail -as $enie$ b reason that there -as no
Philippine la- &rantin& the sa'e in e0tra$ition cases an$ that the
respon$ent -as a hi&h i&ht ris#" Pri!ate respon$ent .le$ a
'otion for reconsi$eration an$ -as &rante$ b the respon$ent
%u$&e sub%ect to the follo-in& con$itions
1" Bail is set at Php7D," in cash -ith the con$ition that
accuse$ hereb un$erta#es that he -ill appear an$ ans-er the
issues raise$ in these procee$in&s an$ -ill at all ti'es hol$ hi'selfa'enable to or$ers an$ processes of this Court, -ill further appear
for %u$&'ent" )f accuse$ fails in this un$erta#in&, the cash bon$ -ill
be forfeite$ in fa!or of the &o!ern'ent
2" Accuse$ 'ust surren$er his !ali$ passport to this Court
" 4he :epart'ent of ;ustice is &i!en i''e$iate notice an$
$iscretion of .lin& its o-n 'otion for hol$ $eparture or$er before
this Court e!en in e0tra$ition procee$in& an$
7/21/2019 Pp vs Gozo
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pp-vs-gozo 10/10
@" Accuse$ is re+uire$ to report to the &o!ern'ent prosecutors
han$lin& this case or if the so $esire to the nearest o5ce, at an
ti'e an$ $a of the -ee# an$ if the further $esire, 'anifest
before this Court to re+uire that all the assets of accuse$, real an$
personal, be .le$ -ith this Court soonest, -ith the con$ition that if
the accuse$ ees fro' his un$erta#in&, sai$ assets be forfeite$ in
fa!or of the &o!ern'ent an$ that the correspon$in& lienIannotation
be note$ therein accor$in&l"
Petitioner .le$ a 'otion to !acate the sai$ or$er but -as $enie$ b
the respon$ent %u$&e" ence, this instant petition"
I&&( ON a potential e0tra$itee is entitle$ to post bail
R)A potential e0tra$itee is entitle$ to bail"
R#%)o D($)*(*)
Petitioner alle&e$ that the trial court co''itte$ &ra!e abuse of
$iscretion a'ountin& to lac# or e0cess of %uris$iction in a$'ittin&
pri!ate respon$ent to bail that there is nothin& in the Constitution
or statutor la- pro!i$in& that a potential e0tra$itee has a ri&ht to
bail, the ri&ht bein& li'ite$ solel to cri'inal procee$in&s"
On the other han$, pri!ate respon$ent 'aintaine$ that the ri&ht to
bail &uarantee$ un$er the Bill of Ri&hts e0ten$s to a prospecti!e
e0tra$itee an$ that e0tra$ition is a harsh process resultin& in aprolon&e$ $epri!ation of ones libert"
)n this case, the Court re!ie-e$ -hat -as hel$ in Go*ernment o
=nited States o America *. 4on. G$illermo G. "$r/anan, "residin/
J$d/e, '% o Manila, 3ranch 86, and Mar1 3. Jimene, a.1.a. Mario
3atacan respo G' o. 75>?95 April 6::9, that the constitutional
pro!ision on bail $oes not appl to e0tra$ition procee$in&s, the
sa'e bein& a!ailable onl in cri'inal procee$in&s" 4he Court too#
co&ni?ance of the follo-in& tren$s in international la-
K1L the &ro-in& i'portance of the in$i!i$ual person in public
international
K2L the hi&her !alue no- bein& &i!en to hu'an ri&hts
KL the correspon$in& $ut of countries to obser!e these uni!ersal
hu'an ri&hts in ful.llin& their treat obli&ations an$
K@L the $ut of this Court to balance the ri&hts of the in$i!i$ual
un$er our fun$a'ental la-, on one han$, an$ the la- on
e0tra$ition, on the other"
)n li&ht of the recent $e!elop'ents in international la-, -here
e'phasis is &i!en to the -orth of the in$i!i$ual an$ the sanctit of
hu'an ri&hts, the Court $eparte$ fro' the rulin& in "$r/anan, an$
hel$ that an e0tra$itee 'a be allo-e$ to post bail"
